Karnataka High Court
Lakshmamma vs Rangaswamy on 14 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
MFA No. 5134 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5134 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. RAJANNA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
2. RAJANNA S/O. GANGAIAH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/A. BILIDEVALAYA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANGASWAMY S/O. ADISHESHAMURTHY,
AGE: MAJOR, C/O. SRINIVAS, NO.557,
1ST MAIN ROAD, KAREKALLU,
1ST CROSS, KAMAKASHIPALYA,
BANGALORE-79.
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI
2. THE MANAGER,
Digitally UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
signed by D.O. 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN,
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N. TEJASHWI, ADV. FOR R2)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173
(1) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 06.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.7807/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
MFA No. 5134 of 2021
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05.10.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
06.03.2021 passed in MVC No.7807/2018 by the
Court of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru City, SCCH-14 (for short 'the Tribunal'),
the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 14.10.2018, at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased
Chetan was proceeding as a pillion rider in a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02/HM-6122
and when he reached near Lupith Daba, Mallipalya,
Kunigal Town, the rider of the motorcycle drove it in
a rash and negligent manner, because of which the
motorcycle fell down and the said Chetan sustained
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
grievous injuries and because of which he died on
17.10.2018. The petitioners are his parents. The
accident happened due to the rash and negligent
driving of the motorcycle, which was duly insured
with respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The
Tribunal has awarded a compensation of
Rs.14,44,700/- along with interest at the rate of 7%
p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Not
satisfied by the same, the petitioners have preferred
this appeal.
4. The accident occurred in the year 2018. The
petitioners have not established the income of the
deceased before the Tribunal. Hence, it is deemed
appropriate to fix his income notionally as per the
chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority in consultation with Insurance Companies,
which will be Rs.12,500/- per month. The deceased
was aged 23 years at the time of the accident.
Hence, a multiplier of 18 is adopted as per the law
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
laid down by the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA &
OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION &
ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. As the
deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income needs
to be deducted towards his personal expenses. As
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, 40% of the income of the deceased has to be
added towards future prospects. Thus, on the count
of 'loss of dependency', petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.12,500 X 12 X 18 X ½
+ 40%).
5. Petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards 'loss of estate and funeral expenses'.
6. Advocate for the petitioners contend that each of the
petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-
towards 'loss of consortium' as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
(supra), MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
VS. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND
OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and
RAHUL GANAPATRAO SABLE VS. LAXMAN
MARUTI JADHAV (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND
OTHERS, passed in SLP(C) No.26871 of 2019 and
SLP(C) No.27394 of 2019 and submit that
together they are entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/-
under this head.
7. However, the advocate for the Insurance Company
contends that together petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'.
They also place their reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case
(supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED VS. BHAGAT SINGH RAWAT,
reported in LAWS (SC)-2023-3-140.
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
8. Paragraphs 46 and 59.8 of the judgment in Pranay
Sethi (supra) reads as under:
46. Another aspect which has created confusion
pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh
Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2012) 6 SCC
421] the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional
method and granted Rs.5000 for transportation of
the body, Rs.10,000 as funeral expenses and
Rs.10,000 as regards the loss of consortium.
In Sarla Verma v. DTC, [(2009) 6 SCC 121], the
Court granted Rs.5000 under the head of loss of
estate, Rs.5000 towards funeral expenses and
Rs.10,000 towards loss of consortium. In
Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh[(2013) 9 SCC 54], the Court
granted Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of consortium
and Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses. It also
granted Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of care and
guidance for minor children. The Court enhanced
the same on the principle that a formula framed to
achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-
economic issue has to be contrasted from a legal
principle and ought to be periodically revisited as
has been held in Santosh Devi. On the principle of
revisit, it fixed different amount on conventional
heads. What weighed with the Court is factum of
inflation and the price index. It has also been
moved by the concept of loss of consortium. We are
inclined to think so, for what it states in that
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
regard. We quote: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9
SCC 54, para 17]
"17. ... In legal parlance, "consortium" is
the right of the spouse to the company,
care, help, comfort, guidance, society,
solace, affection and sexual relations
with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary
head of damages has not been properly
understood by our courts. The loss of
companionship, love, care and
protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to
get, has to be compensated
appropriately. The concept of non-
pecuniary damage for loss of consortium
is one of the major heads of award of
compensation in other parts of the world
more particularly in the United States of
America, Australia, etc. English courts
have also recognised the right of a
spouse to get compensation even during
the period of temporary disablement. By
loss of consortium, the courts have made
an attempt to compensate the loss of
spouse's affection, comfort, solace,
companionship, society, assistance,
protection, care and sexual relations
during the future years. Unlike the
compensation awarded in other countries
and other jurisdictions, since the legal
heirs are otherwise adequately
compensated for the pecuniary loss, it
would not be proper to award a major
amount under this head. Hence, we are
of the view that it would only be just and
reasonable that the courts award at least
rupees one lakh for loss of consortium."
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000
and Rs.15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every
three years."
9. Paragraphs 21 to 24 of the judgment in Magma
General Insurance Co. (supra) reads as under:
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Co.Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680, dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case.
One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal
parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term
which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental
consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to
consortium would include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the
deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect
to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with
the deceased spouse:
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as
rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-
wife which allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation,
affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal
relation".
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child
upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of
"parental aid, protection, affection, society,
discipline, guidance and training".
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of
a child. An accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the parents and
family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection,
companionship and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting
changing norms about the status and worth of
actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-
over have recognised that the value of a child's
consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a
child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to
be awarded compensation under loss of consortium
on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the
parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased
child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their
families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where
a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried
son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be
awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial
consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to
children who lose their parents in motor vehicle
accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
awarded compensation on this count. However,
there was no clarity with respect to the principles
on which compensation could be awarded on loss of
filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under "loss of consortium"
as laid down in Pranay Sethi. In the present case,
we deem it appropriate to award the father and the
sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000
each for loss of filial consortium.
10. Paragraph 33 of the judgment in Rahul Ganapatrao
Sable (supra) reads as under:
33. In the present case, the MACT had granted a
meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
consortium. However, the High Court granted a
total amount of Rs.70,000/- as consolidated
amount under all conventional heads, which
included loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses. In the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), Constitution Bench of this Court had
provided that all dependents should be separately
awarded towards loss of consortium and had
actually awarded Rs.40,000/- to each of the
dependents. Considering the same, an amount of
Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to each of the four
dependents towards loss of consortium.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
11. The judgment in Shri Ram General Insurance
Co.(supra) reads as under:
(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for parties.
(3.) The notice in terms of the order dtd.
13/10/2020 was confined only to two aspects
i.e. the sum for loss of love and affection being
Rs.50,000.00 and for loss of consortium for Rs.
40,000.00 could not have been granted to each
of the three dependents separately but in toto
and that would be the amount quantified. This
was in terms of the judgment in National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors -
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
(4.) We have heard learned counsel for parties.
Learned counsel for the respondents did
endeavour to persuade us that it should be per
the legal heir by relying on Magma General
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram & Ors.-2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546.
(5.) We are, however, of the view that the total
amount has to be assigned under a particular
heading and that will go depending on the
number of legal heirs present.
(6.) The amounts fixed in terms of Pranay
Sethi's case (supra) are Rs.50,000.00 and
Rs.40,000.00 respectively under the two heads
and that should be the total amount payable.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
(7.) Having said so, learned counsel for the
respondent points out that this amount so
determined by us is liable to be enhanced by a
percentage of 10 per cent every three years as
opined in para 61 (viii) of the judgment in
Pranay Sethi's case (supra) which reads as
under:
"61(viii) Reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs.15,000.00
Rs.40,000.00 and Rs.15,000.00
respectively.
The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every
three years."
(8.) The aforesaid position is not disputed by
learned counsel for the appellant.
(9.) Thus, this escalation on account of interest
would also to be admissible for the benefit of the
respondents from the date of the Award which
will mean that in the present case there will be
two escalations of 10 per cent each.
(10.) The impugned judgment is modified to the
aforesaid extent.
(11.) The appellant to deposit the balance amount
within four weeks from today with the Tribunal.
(12.) The appeals stand allowed.
SLP(C) No. 1185-1186/2021
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
(13.) We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order(s) on ground raised.
(14.) The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
ORDER
1.SLP [C] NOS.11669-11671/2020
2.Leave granted.
3.The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
4.Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
SLP(C) No.1185-1186/2021
5.The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed in terms of
the signed order.
6.Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
12. Though in Pranay Sethi's Case (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has not stated, in those many words,
that each of the petitioners are entitled to
compensation under the head 'loss of consortium', to
an extent of Rs.40,000/-, the same has been
explained in the case of Magma Insurance Co.
(supra) and Rahul Ganapatrao Sable (supra). In
the said cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that,
each of the person, who is entitled to compensation
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
as a relative of the deceased, is entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'.
13. Though in the case of Shri Ram General Insurance
Co. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has awarded a
total sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of
consortium', no reason is assigned for the same and
it does not interpret the decision in Pranay Sethi's
case (supra) and hence the same has to be
considered per incuriam in this respect.
14. Thus, the petitioners are held to be entitled to a sum
of Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium' and
together they are entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/-.
15. Further, the facts reveal that the deceased after
accident was admitted to hospital and based on the
actual bills submitted, the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.13,885/- towards 'medical expenses'. I
do not see any reason to disagree with the Tribunal
in this regard.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
16. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.20,13,885/- as detailed in the
table below:
Sl. Compensation Amount Amount
No. towards awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of Rs.13,60,800.00 Rs.18,90,000.00
dependency
2. Medical expenses Rs.13,885.00 Rs. 13,885.00
3. Transportation of Rs.15,000.00 Rs.15,000.00
dead body and
Funeral expenses
4. Filial consortium Rs.40,000.00 Rs.80,000.00
5. Loss of estate Rs.15,000.00 Rs.15,000.00
Total Rs.14,44,685.00 Rs.20,13,885.00
17. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to an enhanced
compensation of Rs.5,69,200/- over and above
what has been awarded by the Tribunal
(Rs.20,13,885/- minus Rs.14,44,685/-). Further,
given the bank rate of interest, I deem it appropriate
to award interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45640
enhanced compensation from the date of petition till
realization.
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The petitioners are entitled to an enhanced
compensation of Rs.5,69,200/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of petition before the Tribunal till
realization, which shall be over and above
what has been awarded by the Tribunal;
(iii) Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall
pay the enhanced compensation within a
period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order;
(v) Office to draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
